Process to Correct Counting Issues

The information on this page is excerpted from “Appendix E: Process to Correct Counting Issues or Update CVE Entries” of the “CVE Numbering Authorities (CNA) Rules” document, and includes discussion of the topics below.

Since mistakes are inevitable, processes to correct them are necessary. The following sections describe different scenarios wherein the CVE ID assignment goes awry, and the corresponding resolution process.

In general, a CVE Entry may be updated in order to:

Add or update a reference;

Update a description;

Resolve the existence of a duplicate entry; or

Reject an entry.

These updates may be initiated by:

The CNA that assigned the CVE ID;

A third-party with information not currently included in the CVE Entry; or

A Root or the Primary CNA resolving an issue with the CVE Entry.

As part of a CNA’s vulnerability management process, a CNA can choose whether they wish to vet any updates to CVE IDs that they assigned. The process for communicating those changes between CNAs and requesters will vary depending on the CNA. It is not a requirement that CNAs must vet changes to their CNA Entries.

Reject: A CVE ID Should Not Have Been Assigned

There are many reasons why a CVE ID may be rejected, such as: further research determines the issue is not a vulnerability; a typo in an advisory causes the wrong CVE ID to be used; or the researcher decides to keep the vulnerability private.

In these instances and others, the description for the CVE Entry is updated to reflect that the CVE ID has been REJECTED and provides the reason for the rejection.

Merge: Multiple CVE IDs Assigned to One Vulnerability

The process for resolving multiple CVE IDs assigned to a single vulnerability (as defined by the counting decisions) is as follows:

Determine which CVE ID to associate with the issue.

Merge the information from the other CVE IDs into chosen CVE ID.

Update the CVE IDs that were not chosen with a REJECTED description that points to the chosen CVE ID as the correct one to use.

The following criteria is used to select which identifier will be associated with the issue:

PREFER THE MOST COMMONLY REFERENCED IDENTIFIER. This is roughly gauged by searching for all affected identifiers on a search engine and comparing results.

If the usage numbers of identifiers are about the same, then CHOOSE THE IDENTIFIER USED BY THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE. The “most authoritative source” is roughly prioritized as: vendor, coordinator, researcher.

If the identifiers have the same level of authority, then CHOOSE THE IDENTIFIER THAT HAS BEEN PUBLIC FOR THE LONGEST PERIOD OF TIME.

If the identifiers have been public for the same amount of time, then CHOOSE THE IDENTIFIER WITH THE SMALLEST NUMERIC PORTION.

Note that the process described above is reserved for cases where the CVE IDs have clearly been assigned to the same vulnerability. If there is insufficient information to decide, the description of the CVE Entries may be changed to indicate that they may be the same. For example, a NOTE sentence such as “This may be the same as < the-other-CVE-ID >” or “This may overlap < the-other-CVE-ID >” may be used.

Dispute: Validity of the Vulnerability is Questioned

Not everyone shares the same definition of a vulnerability. One person’s vulnerability is another person’s security hardening opportunity, and another person’s intended functionality. How does CVE deal with these differing opinions?

When an authoritative source disputes the validity of the vulnerability, “** DISPUTED **” is added to the beginning of the description, and a short NOTE is added to the end explaining why the vulnerability is disputed. Ideally, the disputing party provides a link that can be added to the CVE as a reference, and a quote that can be used as the explanation in the NOTE. However, neither are required.

Note that marking a CVE Entry as disputed is different from rejecting a CVE Entry. Rejections are made because the issue is clearly not a vulnerability (it fails CNT2), the vulnerability is not made public (it fails INC2), the product isn't customer controlled (it fails INC3), or the product is not generally available (it fails INC4). Entries are disputed when there are differing opinions about it being a vulnerability or regarding the specific details of the vulnerability itself. The more binary cases of INC2, INC3, and INC4 are not things that can be disputed, per se. They either are or are not true.

Partial Duplicate

There are cases where two CVE IDs overlap in what software or hardware is affected by the same vulnerabilities. An example of this would be if CVE-2017-nnnn1 references Product1 versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 and CVE-2017-nnnn2 is assigned to the same vulnerability and references Product1 versions 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0.

In this situation, use the following process.

PREFER THE MOST COMMONLY REFERENCED IDENTIFIER. This is roughly gauged by searching for all affected identifiers on a search engine and comparing results. In our example above, CVE-2017-nnnn1 is used more often than CVE-2017-nnnn2. Therefore, CVE-2017-nnnn1 would reference versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, and CVE-2017-nnnn2 would be changed to only reference versions 4.0 and 5.0. In both CVE entries, a note should be added to the effect "This CVE entry is related to [the other]."

If the usage numbers of identifiers are about the same, then CHOOSE THE IDENTIFIER USED BY THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE. The "most authoritative source" is roughly prioritized as: vendor, coordinator, researcher. Again, if CVE-2017-nnnn1 is used by the most authoritative source, CVE-2017-nnnn1 would reference versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, and CVE-2017-nnnn2 would be changed to only reference versions 4.0 and 5.0. In both CVE entries, a note should be added to the effect "This CVE entry is related to [the other]."

If the identifiers have the same level of authority, then CHOOSE THE IDENTIFIER THAT HAS BEEN PUBLIC FOR THE LONGEST PERIOD OF TIME. Again, if CVE-2017-nnnn1 has been public for the longest period, CVE-2017-nnnn1 would reference versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, and CVE-2017-nnnn2 would be changed to only reference versions 4.0 and 5.0. In both CVE entries, a note should be added to the effect "This CVE entry is related to [the other]."

If the identifiers have been public for the same amount of time, then CHOOSE THE IDENTIFIER WITH THE SMALLEST NUMERIC PORTION. Since CVE-2017-nnnn1 uses a smaller numeric portion, CVE-2017-nnnn1 would reference versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, and CVE-2017-nnnn2 would be changed to only reference versions 4.0 and 5.0. In both CVE entries, a note should be added to the effect "This CVE Entry is related to [the other]."

If there are any disputes after this, CHOOSE THE IDENTIFIER THAT WAS POPULATED IN THE CVE LIST THE EARLIEST. Assuming CVE-2017-nnnn1 was populated earliest, CVE-2017-nnnn1 would reference versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, and CVE-2017-nnnn2 would be changed to only reference versions 4.0 and 5.0. In both CVE Entries, a note should be added to the effect "This CVE Entry is related to [the other]."

Note that the process described above is reserved for cases where the CVE IDs have clearly been assigned to the same vulnerability. If there is insufficient information to decide, the description of the CVE Entries may be changed to indicate that they may be the same. For example, a NOTE sentence such as "This may be the same as…" or "This may overlap…" may be used.